DC - Former President Donald Trump indicted, 4 federal counts in 2020 election interference, 1 Aug 2023, Trial 4 Mar 2024 #2

[Betty P]

I agree. But then the current government needs to work toward tightening up the Constitution, but is there even a hint that they are working in that direction? I hear crickets.

I think some of these Supreme Court rulings have caught legislators by surprise. In nearly 250 years as a country, there's never been this much of a problem dealing with a corrupt elected official, particularly a POTUS. Times certainly have changed. It's a laundry list of recent Supreme Court rulings that need to be reversed or changed, starting with describing the instances for criminal prosecution of a sitting POTUS. I've heard some experts say it can be further refined in lower court rulings. Others have issued a call for a Constitutional Amendment. Others in Congress have introduced a bill to impeach members of the Supreme Court.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4750034-ocasio-cortez-impeachment-articles-supreme-court-justices-trump-immunity/

House Democrat pledges amendment to reverse Trump immunity ruling

Congressman Joe Morelle vows to act in wake of supreme court decision – but plan is highly unlikely to succeed

www.theguardian.com

 

[SouthAussie]

"Exclusive: ex-president prepares to shut down possibility of high-profile officials testifying at evidentiary hearings

Donald Trump is expected to launch a new legal battle to suppress any damaging evidence from his 2020 election-subversion case from becoming public before the 2024 election, preparing to shut down the potency of any “mini-trials” where high-profile officials could testify against him.

Trump’s lawyers are expected to argue that the judge can decide whether the conduct is immune based on legal arguments alone, negating the need for witnesses or multiple evidentiary hearings

The plans, which have not been previously reported, are aimed at having the triple effect of burying damaging testimony, making it harder for prosecutors to overcome the presumptive immunity for official acts, and injecting new delay into the case through protracted legal fights.

Trump’s lawyers are not expected to make any moves until the start of August .... "

Trump plans to block hearings in January 6 case before 2024 election

 

[SouthAussie]

Biden is calling for sweeping reforms in the Supreme Court to ensure that no president is above the law.

“This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law,” Biden writes in Monday’s Washington Post. “Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one.”

Biden ..... is calling for three “bold” reforms “to restore trust and accountability to the court and our democracy.”

The first is a “No One Is Above the Law Amendment” .....
Second .... an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices
And third .... a code of ethics to be enforced for Supreme Court justices.

Biden Fires Parting Shot at Supreme Court: ‘Not Above Law’

 

[GRT]

Biden is calling for sweeping reforms in the Supreme Court to ensure that no president is above the law.

“This nation was founded on a simple yet profound principle: No one is above the law,” Biden writes in Monday’s Washington Post. “Not the president of the United States. Not a justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. No one.”

Biden ..... is calling for three “bold” reforms “to restore trust and accountability to the court and our democracy.”

The first is a “No One Is Above the Law Amendment” .....
Second .... an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices
And third .... a code of ethics to be enforced for Supreme Court justices.

Biden Fires Parting Shot at Supreme Court: ‘Not Above Law’

There's a lot of bipartisan support for SCOTUS term limits. I doubt the Amendment will pass, but Biden could add four additional members to the Court now to balance the sway.

 

[Betty P]

There's a lot of bipartisan support for SCOTUS term limits. I doubt the Amendment will pass, but Biden could add four additional members to the Court now to balance the sway.

They have to find some way to make the court uphold ethical standards. They have a system for it at the federal courts level. It needs to be applied to the SCOTUS level, too.

 

[SouthAussie]

They have to find some way to make the court uphold ethical standards. They have a system for it at the federal courts level. It needs to be applied to the SCOTUS level, too.

Yes, lack of a formal code of ethics can absolutely lead to travesties like "immunity for a former president". Especially because the justices are appointed by politicians. imo

The justices still want to police themselves
November 14, 2023

 

[Inthedetails]

There's a lot of bipartisan support for SCOTUS term limits. I doubt the Amendment will pass, but Biden could add four additional members to the Court now to balance the sway.

I don't think it will pass before the election as it's big change. It's been so engrained in my brain from learning about the three branches in school that the SC judges are there for life. I need some time myself to think about changing it. Would judges be more susceptible to corruption if their time in office is limited - to get what they can while the getting is good?

I do think it will eventually pass.

jmo

jmo

 

[GRT]

I don't think it will pass before the election as it's big change. It's been so engrained in my brain from learning about the three branches in school that the SC judges are there for life. I need some time myself to think about changing it. Would judges be more susceptible to corruption if their time in office is limited - to get what they can while the getting is good?

I do think it will eventually pass.

jmo

jmo

That's a really good question.

Like you, I don't think term limits will pass soon, but the one advantage—if it is an advantage—is that they are a way to get a rogue justice out.

Although Congress does have the power to impeach justices now, so there's that.

I fully expected the current SCOTUS to uphold the presidential immunity case because that one was established back in 1982 with the Nixon v. Fitzgerald case. But that does not extend to ALL charges, just the ones considered to be within the "outer perimeter" of the duties of office. It doesn't give a president unfettered power--there are still checks and balances. Trump will likely still face some charges, but it'll be up to the lower courts to determine where those charges fall within the rulings.

Passing an amendment to change those rulings would be nearly impossible. MOO And, setting term limits now, as you say, is also probably not going to happen.

But Biden could (and MOO, should) add four more justices to the Court—or at least try. The problem there is the same one Obama faced at the end of his last term—Congress called him a lame duck and fought his nominations.

If Harris wins, she could balance the power on SCOTUS, but who knows if she would. Personally, I think the nation is so much larger now than it was when 9 justices were adopted that the number could be increased and it would better represent our diverse population. But, that's all MOO.

I do worry about an increasing power vacuum should Trump win and do whatever he plans to do to uphold his recent promise to Christians that if they vote for him at this time, they won't have to vote again. I don't know what he meant by that, but I found it concerning.

 

[Inthedetails]

That's a really good question.

Like you, I don't think term limits will pass soon, but the one advantage—if it is an advantage—is that they are a way to get a rogue justice out.

Although Congress does have the power to impeach justices now, so there's that.

I fully expected the current SCOTUS to uphold the presidential immunity case because that one was established back in 1982 with the Nixon v. Fitzgerald case. But that does not extend to ALL charges, just the ones considered to be within the "outer perimeter" of the duties of office. It doesn't give a president unfettered power--there are still checks and balances. Trump will likely still face some charges, but it'll be up to the lower courts to determine where those charges fall within the rulings.

Passing an amendment to change those rulings would be nearly impossible. MOO And, setting term limits now, as you say, is also probably not going to happen.

But Biden could (and MOO, should) add four more justices to the Court—or at least try. The problem there is the same one Obama faced at the end of his last term—Congress called him a lame duck and fought his nominations.

If Harris wins, she could balance the power on SCOTUS, but who knows if she would. Personally, I think the nation is so much larger now than it was when 9 justices were adopted that the number could be increased and it would better represent our diverse population. But, that's all MOO.

I do worry about an increasing power vacuum should Trump win and do whatever he plans to do to uphold his recent promise to Christians that if they vote for him at this time, they won't have to vote again. I don't know what he meant by that, but I found it concerning.

If a justice is impeached, what does that mean for any decisions that judge made? Are they invalid? Would decisions that judge made have to be investigated one by one to make sure they were made legitimately? Ugh, it could be a mess even to get rid of a mess.

jmo

 

[GRT]

If a justice is impeached, what does that mean for any decisions that judge made? Are they invalid? Would decisions that judge made have to be investigated one by one to make sure they were made legitimately? Ugh, it could be a mess even to get rid of a mess.

jmo

I don't think it would have any retroactive impact on their former decisions, given the Court as a whole is afforded legal stability based on collective judgment.

But rulings can be altered based on the cases before the Court. Had the Dobbs case never been filed, Roe would never have been overturned. Of course, a similar case could have come along...

 

[Kemug]

I do worry about an increasing power vacuum should Trump win and do whatever he plans to do to uphold his recent promise to Christians that if they vote for him at this time, they won't have to vote again. I don't know what he meant by that, but I found it concerning.

RSBM
On its face value, it seems to mean that if he wins, he will become USAs leader for life - because he will see to that happening once he has the power. I wouldn't put it past him to call himself the King, and establish a royal family, I really wouldn't. We have already seen him do things that we wouldn't have thought possible, and (so far) get away with them. I don't find this concerning, I find it terrifying.

 

[GRT]

RSBM
On its face value, it seems to mean that if he wins, he will become USAs leader for life - because he will see to that happening once he has the power. I wouldn't put it past him to call himself the King, and establish a royal family, I really wouldn't. We have already seen him do things that we wouldn't have thought possible, and (so far) get away with them. I don't find this concerning, I find it terrifying.

It was a thoughtless comment for him to make for sure, but I thought it was more about adding even more far-right conservatives to SCOTUS. That would really set us back.

Fortunately for our country, we have constitutional term limits for presidents and separation of power between the three branches. No single branch (executive/presidential) can dominate the others.

Congress still controls the federal budget and can refuse to fund inappropriate executive initiatives. That ability alone is perhaps the biggest check on any president's authority. Congress can also override presidential vetoes.

I have no doubt that should any president attempt to garner more control, it would mobilize the opposing party. So, I'm more worried that Trump will add the four new members to SCOTUS and that Biden will let that opportunity slip by. It may be too late for Biden to even make the effort.

However, should Kamala win, we could see a shift in the Court as well.

All JMOO

Personally, I'd like to see our country become less divisive.

 

[Betty P]

I don't think it will pass before the election as it's big change. It's been so engrained in my brain from learning about the three branches in school that the SC judges are there for life. I need some time myself to think about changing it. Would judges be more susceptible to corruption if their time in office is limited - to get what they can while the getting is good?

I do think it will eventually pass.

jmo

jmo

I think expanding the court is a good idea, its been considered before. Upholding ethical standards seems to work well at the federal level. We've worked for over 200 yrs on the honor system with SCOTUS. It's a shame we now have to deal with corruption and conflicts of interest, but at least we made it that far.

I also agree with reversing the decision made in the 1929 to restore the ability to expand the number of seats in Congress as the population grows. Prior to 1929, the number of seats in Congress fluctuated based on population changes. I hope that reform is also addressed. Too many CD's have very large populations, leaving members of Congress out of touch with their constituents.

Beginning in 1790, after each census, Congress enacted a law that specified the changes in the actual
number of Representatives. The law also designated the increase in the ratio of Representatives to
the population. Because the House wanted a manageable number of members, Congress twice set
the size of the House at 435 voting members. The first law to do so was passed on August 8, 1911.
President William H. Taft signed legislation increasing the membership of the House from 391 to
433. (Two more members were added when New Mexico and Arizona became states.

https://www.visitthecapitol.gov/sites/default/files/documents/resources-and-activities/CVC_HS_ActivitySheets_CongApportionment.pdf

 

[SouthAussie]

This case is expected to return to Judge Chutkan's court today.

This Washington Post article says that the Supreme Court had given until Friday for the case to return to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, which may choose to weigh in or, more likely, return the case to Chutkan.


Then this unpaywalled article goes into further detail.

Attorneys working on the case believe that Chutkan will move quickly with the case back in her jurisdiction, according to sources familiar with their thinking. She could soon set the schedule for any upcoming hearings.

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/08/02/politics/chutkan-trump-election-interference-case/index.html

 

[sds71]

Trump federal Jan. 6 case is now back in Judge Chutkan’s jurisdiction, per remand order from the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415/gov.uscourts.cadc.40415.1208649289.0.pdf

https://twitter.com/x/status/1819437066843037882

 

[GRT]

Trump federal Jan. 6 case is now back in Judge Chutkan’s jurisdiction, per remand order from the DC Circuit and the Supreme Court

It'll be up to her to decide which charges she can continue with and which ones fall under the SCOTUS' partial immunity ruling. Originally, she wanted to have this case heard before the November election, but that seems like a long shot now. If there's anything left to charge...

 

[Tricia]

Hey Everyone,
Remember the days when I used to come on and whine and ask for money? Remember how annoying all those ads were on the forum? The good news is that thanks to our partnership with Othram, we are free of my whining and those obnoxious ads.
If you like the fact that we are ad-free then please consider making a monthly donation to DNA Solves.com CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR A MONTHLY DONATION TO DNA SOLVES
By subscribing and making a monthly donation, you will be helping the families finally get the answers they deserve.
The amazing people at DNA Solves/Othram care deeply about finding the families of the unidentified.
Even 5 dollars a month would go a long way to finding the families of the unidentified.
Please do not discuss this on this thread. CLICK HERE if you would like to discuss further or have any questions.
Thank you,
Tricia Griffith
Manager/Websleuths.com

 

[SouthAussie]

It'll be up to her to decide which charges she can continue with and which ones fall under the SCOTUS' partial immunity ruling. Originally, she wanted to have this case heard before the November election, but that seems like a long shot now. If there's anything left to charge...

Sounds as if Chutkan may have an evidentiary hearing soon, so that she can make that decision. She has stated in the past how she wanted to move the case along.


The case is not expected to reach trial before this year’s presidential election, when Trump hopes to retake the White House and dismantle the prosecution.

But the judge could tee up an evidentiary hearing that effectively becomes a mini-trial before November, as the judge mulls how to apply the Supreme Court’s new immunity test to the specifics of the GOP nominee’s indictment.

Chutkan has previously rebuffed the former president’s attempts for delay, saying the election won’t factor into her timing decisions.

Trump’s Jan. 6 case officially back in Judge Chutkan’s hands after immunity ruling

 

[GRT]

Sounds as if Chutkan may have an evidentiary hearing soon, so that she can make that decision. She has stated in the past how she wanted to move the case along.


The case is not expected to reach trial before this year’s presidential election, when Trump hopes to retake the White House and dismantle the prosecution.

But the judge could tee up an evidentiary hearing that effectively becomes a mini-trial before November, as the judge mulls how to apply the Supreme Court’s new immunity test to the specifics of the GOP nominee’s indictment.

Chutkan has previously rebuffed the former president’s attempts for delay, saying the election won’t factor into her timing decisions.

Trump’s Jan. 6 case officially back in Judge Chutkan’s hands after immunity ruling

She likely will. If she's smart, and I think she is, she and her prosecutors would have been preparing behind the scenes for a while now. Still, I don't think it's possible to do much more than an evidentiary hearing before the election.

And, I have to wonder how much Chutkan has left to work with after SCOTUS ruling. I don't think she can use anything Trump or his advisors have said or anything in their private records. The following from the ruling will likely remove much of the evidence Chutkan would have used.

"On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32."

All MOO

 

[SouthAussie]

She likely will. If she's smart, and I think she is, she and her prosecutors would have been preparing behind the scenes for a while now. Still, I don't think it's possible to do much more than an evidentiary hearing before the election.

And, I have to wonder how much Chutkan has left to work with after SCOTUS ruling. I don't think she can use anything Trump or his advisors have said or anything in their private records. The following from the ruling will likely remove much of the evidence Chutkan would have used.

"On remand, the District Court must carefully analyze the indictment’s remaining allegations to determine whether they too involve conduct for which a President must be immune from prosecution. And the parties and the District Court must ensure that sufficient allegations support the indictment’s charges without such conduct. Testimony or private records of the President or his advisers probing such conduct may not be admitted as evidence at trial. Pp. 30–32."

All MOO

I guess she will need to decide if all of his very public and ongoing speech about "the election was stolen" amounts to behaviour within the bounds of the (former) presidency.

And if the more-than 60 lawsuits that he lost, challenging the election results, were within the bounds of the (former) presidency.

Because that may show the conspiracy. He didn't file those lawsuits all by himself.

It is really hard to tell. We all know he did conspire. Maybe Jack Smith has more evidence up his sleeve that does not involve his 'advisors'. Like the conversations overheard (and published) by other former WH staff.

imo